4.7 Review

Pharmacological therapies in post stroke recovery: recommendations for future clinical trials

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
Volume 261, Issue 8, Pages 1461-1468

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-013-7172-z

Keywords

Stroke recovery; Brain plasticity; Pharmacology; Clinical trials; Clinical scales; Outcome scales; Statistical analysis

Funding

  1. Institut de Recherche Pierre Fabre

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Stroke is a leading cause of serious long-term disability in adults and is the second leading cause of death worldwide. Early reperfusion and neuroprotection techniques have been the focus of much effort with the aim of very acute treatment of the stroke. Targeting different mechanisms, pharmacological therapies have the potential to reduce disability in a large fraction of patients who survive the acute stroke. The brain's capacity to reorganize after stroke through plasticity mechanisms can be modulated by pharmacological agents. A number of therapeutic interventions are under study, including small molecules, growth factors, and monoclonal antibodies. Recently it has been shown that the SSRI fluoxetine improved motor deficit in patients with ischaemic stroke and hemiplegia which appeared to be independent of the presence of depression. In this context, it is of major importance to support innovative research in order to promote the emergence of new pharmacological treatments targeting neurological recovery after stroke, as opposed to acute de-occlusion and neuroprotection. This paper is the work of a group of 14 scientists with aim of (1) addressing key areas of the basic and clinical aspects of human brain plasticity after stroke and potential pharmacological targets for recovery, (2) asking questions about the most appropriate characteristics of clinical trials testing drugs in post stroke recovery and (3) proposing recommendations for future clinical trials.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available